Glaucoma Department, St. Erik Eye Hospital, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
BMC Ophthalmol. 2012 Aug 2;12:35. doi: 10.1186/1471-2415-12-35.
The purpose of this study was to compare the monocular Humphrey Visual Field (HVF) with the binocular Humphrey Esterman Visual Field (HEVF) for determining whether subjects suffering from glaucoma fulfilled the new medical requirements for possession of a Swedish driver's license.
HVF SITA Fast 24-2 full threshold (monocularly) and HEVF (binocularly) were performed consecutively on the same day on 40 subjects with glaucomatous damage of varying degrees in both eyes. Assessment of results was constituted as either "pass" or "fail", according to the new medical requirements put into effect September 1, 2010 by the Swedish Transport Agency.
Forty subjects were recruited and participated in the study. Sixteen subjects passed both tests, and sixteen subjects failed both tests. Eight subjects passed the HEFV but failed the HVF. There was a significant difference between HEVF and HVF (χ(2), p = 0.004). There were no subjects who passed the HVF, but failed the HEVF.
The monocular visual field test (HVF) gave more specific information about the location and depth of the defects, and therefore is the overwhelming method of choice for use in diagnostics. The binocular visual field test (HEVF) seems not be as efficient as the HVF in finding visual field defects in glaucoma subjects, and is therefore doubtful in evaluating visual capabilities in traffic situations.
本研究旨在比较单眼 Humphrey 视野（HVF）和双眼 Humphrey Esterman 视野（HEVF），以确定患有青光眼的受试者是否符合瑞典驾驶执照的新医学要求。
在同一天对 40 名双眼均有不同程度青光眼损害的受试者进行 HVF SITA Fast 24-2 全阈值（单眼）和 HEVF（双眼）检查。根据瑞典运输署 2010 年 9 月 1 日生效的新医学要求，评估结果为“通过”或“失败”。
共招募了 40 名受试者参加研究。16 名受试者通过了两项测试，16 名受试者两项测试均未通过。8 名受试者通过了 HEFV，但 HVF 未通过。HEVF 和 HVF 之间存在显著差异（χ(2)，p = 0.004）。没有通过 HVF 但未通过 HEVF 的受试者。
单眼视野测试（HVF）提供了关于缺陷位置和深度的更具体信息，因此是诊断中首选的压倒性方法。双眼视野测试（HEVF）在发现青光眼受试者的视野缺陷方面似乎不如 HVF 有效，因此在评估交通情况下的视力能力方面值得怀疑。
